NPR aired interviews this morning with New Hampshire voters who, in the last moments before their primary vote, decided to switch from Barack Obama to Hillary Clinton. Being in New Hampshire, of course these were all white folks who, essentially, decided to 'stick with theirs' and tackle the "First Woman" challenge as opposed to the "First African American" one. Folks - I fear we're going to see A LOT of this in the months to come.

I've been talking for awhile about the notion that when I put my conspiracy hat on - I wonder whether Barack is a strategic manifestation of the Democratic Party to propel Hillary into office. Think about it: if Barack wasn't running strongly in the race, America would fixated on Hillary's gender. The big question on everyone's mind would be if America is really ready for a woman president. As it is now, with Barack Obama in the race (not just a brother, but one with an Arabic sounding name) - he stretches America's sensibilities about who could be president well beyond the limits of where we would be if just Hillary were running. In fact, as we hear with people in New Hampshire, voting for Hillary becomes the "safe" option; less risky than a vote for Obama. A vote for Hillary becomes one that apparently seems, to many, as the more practical and safe alternative versus a vote for someone who is relatively unknown, has been positioned as being less experienced, and - of course - is black.

To be clear, while perhaps counterintuitive at a superficial level, Barack's strong showing has a demonstrative and strategic long-term benefit for Hillary. This may not be an accident but something that has been carefully planned and strategized about.

Think about it: the Clintons have controlled the Democratic Party for a long time. Do you remember when we were first introduced to Barack? It was at the Democratic National Party Convention; at John Kerry's coronation. At the time, Barack Obama was an absolutely anonymous state senator from Illinois. How in heaven's name did he get chosen to deliver the keynote speech before Kerry's nomination? At the most important time for the party, the DNC chose a no name, black state legislator, who's previous background and acclaim was as a small time community organizer and civil rights lawyer, to bring the message of the entire Democratic Party to the country and, ostensibly, to propel Kerry toward the White House. Really? Again, Barack had no national stature, he wasn't a "rising star" in the party. There were probably hundreds of other politicians who would have been a more logical choice for the job. Why would the Clinton dominated 'powers that be' select Barack - if not to set him on a path that puts him in the position to help Hillary today?

Why? They handpicked Barack because it served their interests to do so. They saw the potential in Barack fulfilling an extremely important strategic purpose in best positioning Hillary for the White House! That's why!

Fast forward to last week, based upon the results in the Iowa caucuses, I'm sure Billary was starting to worry whether their strategy had actually backfired on them. Had they set in motion something that caught fire in America and would actually permanently overtake them? Could they get the cat back in the proverbial political bag after all? I guess that remains to be seen, but yesterday's New Hampshire primary could be quite revealing about how things will progress.

Another element in Hillary's favor is the "Tom Bradley Effect". You'll remember that as the mayor of Los Angeles, Bradley was leading in all of the polls to become the first black governor of California - to only lose the race based upon people, apparently, having a last second change of heart once the drapes were pulled behind them. Pundits speculated that, at the end of the day, many whites just couldn't vote for a black man for governor. In the current race, Hillary offers a convenient rationalization to give fearful (racist?) whites an out from having to vote for Barack. They can always say that they thought a woman should be given the shot first. That provides them with a plausible and socially acceptable excuse for their personal shortcomings around Barack's race. Without understating the historical achievement that Hillary's election would represent, if white Democrats vote for her merely because of racist impulses - then her victory would be hollow. America wouldn't be voting FOR a woman. They'd be voting AGAINST a black man. For Hillary, understanding and manipulating that dynamic to her benefit might be the strongest motivation for heartland votes that there is!

In the final analysis, however he got there, Barack is on the national stage and has the opportunity to seize this shot at America's political brass ring. Whether he was ever meant to seriously contend, or whether he was only meant to help America better digest Hillary's candidacy, like the rabbit in long distance race who shoots out to an early lead to pace the leader, instead of dutifully stepping aside for the star to continue on to victory, Barack Obama could just stay on the track and win the thing for himself. All obstacles aside, that's what many Americans - including me - are counting on.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: MBM,

You've overreached here.

First, there is no compelling reason (save the Clintons' personal desire) to elect the first Woman President on the part of the Democratic Party. Was/is Dem Party losing vast numbers of female voters to Republican or Independent interests? I've seen no such reporting that would indicate it, so where is the need for such a "conspiratorial effort" now?

Second, given no direct threat to its female voting base, why wouldn't the Democrats pursue the safest route to victory -- a tried and true (if tired?) white man? Particulary in what should be a "slam dunk" election year, given the consensus that G. Bush and the Republicans have mishandled the leadership of the nation?

Look at anybody's right track-wrong track polling. It's pretty consistent. there's no logical political reason for to ask the country to embark on any "groundbreaking" read risky electoral strategy (be it the first woman or first Af-Am) when the political landscape is already set up for you to win.

Thirdly, the Democrats are historically the party of primary chaos, their brawling primary processes (for good or ill) producing survivors who emerges to battle the Republicans. The Republicans usually orcestrate there candidates. Dole in '96 because it was preceived as his turn for his years of service and Senate leadership; Bush (41) before him. They tend to follow a "we'll-select-the-nominee" pattern much more than the Dems.

I don't know why/how Obama was chosen for the keynote in '04. Both parties "groom" people for future endeavors, maybe it was a favor for a favor. who knows, there may be several factors which led to his choice.

but the Clinton-orchestrated conspiracy thing doesn't wash, IMO.

This isn't about the Democrats. It's about the Clintons.

The contention is that the Clintons essentially control the DNC. They own most of the super delegates and have insinuated old Bill loyalists throughout the national organization. Remember Terry McAuliffe - former head of the DNC? He was a Clinton pawn - an old time FOB. He was head of the party at the time of the convention.

You may be right that this is all just 'dumb luck' for Hillary, but any time something happens I always ask - who does this benefit most? When it comes to power and money, frequently, things don't happen by accident. People are extremely strategic and thoughtful about getting things to roll their way.

An old coach used to say that "luck is when preparation meets opportunity". Why wouldn't the Clintons use their influence to enhance Hillary's chances at the presidency?

quote:

Originally posted by MBM:
This isn't about the Democrats. It's about the Clintons.

The contention is that the Clintons essentially control the DNC. They own most of the super delegates and have insinuated old Bill loyalists throughout the national organization. Remember Terry McAuliffe - former head of the DNC? He was a Clinton pawn - an old time FOB. He was head of the party at the time of the convention.

The Democratic party does indeed have a compelling reason to elect another Clinton.

quote:

Originally posted by MBM:

Remember Terry McAuliffe - former head of the DNC? He was a Clinton pawn - an old time FOB. He was head of the party at the time of the convention.

I just found out that ole Terry is Hillary's campaign chairman. Makes sense to me!

I still don't see the "feminization of political rationalization" bit.

Can you elaborate on the feminization part?

Shouldn't this read the "Racialization of politics"???

quote:

Originally posted by negrospiritual:
I still don't see the "feminization of political rationalization" bit.

Can you elaborate on the feminization part?

Shouldn't this read the "Racialization of politics"???

The whole title is meant to be a long regurgitation of nothingness so don't take it too seriously. What I meant by that is the contention that some white folks, as I heard on the radio this morning, will use the excuse that they wanted to vote for the first woman for president as their socially acceptable excuse to not vote for a black man. Of course, you're right, in this instance both race and gender are inextricably intertwined.

I fear we're going to see A LOT of this in the months to come.---MBM

[I]You are absolutely right!!!!!!!!!

When the curtain closes on that voting booth, is when each voter must come to gripes with their willingness to vote the voice they 'put out there' when 'everyone was watching'.

Some of your 'best friends' are 'black'.

Really??

When???

When it counts???

When you are all alone, when you have an election machine waiting for your real thought...your real fear?

A lot of European-Americans will be deeply tested when the curtain closes on that voting booth.

A lot of African American-Americans will be deeply tested when the curtain closes on that voting booth.

My concern is for those African American-Americans...AND all those other Americans of African ancestry.

The candidacy of Senator Obama is generationally important to healing centuries of trauma.

It is understandalbe when European-Americans are conflicted.

It is very sad when Americans of African ancestry, both unknown and known, are conflicted.

To believe that any candidate of European ancestry will be of value comparable to African America as Senator Obama is sorely misguided.

It is clear that Senator Obama is equal, in all respects, to every other candidate running.

He exceeds the capability of most.

He is unquestionably the better choice over Senator Clinton who has proven...repeatedly...to be an active treachery African America.

The perception of African America, and African Americans was verbalized by her husband when he was angry...characterizing Senator Obama's candidacy for the Presidency as fantasy.

FANTASY!!!!!

REVEALED ARROGANCE!!!

It is often said the words and acts of a drunk are the hidden intent of a sober mind.

Anger can reveal the same hidden agenda.[I]

PEACE

Jim Chester